Running head: DEAD MEN AT WAR 1

Dead Men at War: The Ideological Battle Between Karl Marx and Adam Smith

Matthew G. Beals

A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for graduation

in the Honors Program

Liberty University

Spring 2020

DEAD MEN AT WAR 2

Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis

This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the

Honors Program of Liberty University.

George Young, Ph.D.

Thesis Chair

Chris Huseman, Ph.D.

Committee Member

James H. Nutter, D.A.

Honors Director

April 11, 2020

DEAD MEN AT WAR 3

Abstract

This thesis’s foremost purpose is to illustrate the nature of the intellectual battle waged between

Karl Marx and Adam Smith. A detailed summary of each philosopher’s respective ideology is

given, as well as an explanation for how such ideologies arose. Furthermore, an illustration of

how the writings of Marx and Smith impacted historical events is provided. Ultimately, this

thesis seeks to explain the core differences between Marxism and the free market system, and

why such differences exhibit a great need for the preservation of liberty.

Keywords: individual sovereignty, communism, capitalism, liberty

DEAD MEN AT WAR 4

Dead Men at War: The Ideological Battle Between Karl Marx and Adam Smith

Introduction

What is a man? Is he merely a trivial collection of atoms, or is he composed of something

else? Is there something that separates him from the lowly beasts of the field, or is he an entirely

corporal being resigned to rely on impulsive pleasure, while submitting himself to the

enslavement of his carnal needs? Ultimately, when man looks inward, does he see his own

untrammeled soul, or does he instead peer only into the finite workings of a machine?

One of the greatest literary geniuses of all time, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, attempted to

answer these essential questions. In his illuminating work, Notes from Underground,

Dostoevsky (2012) writes:

Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that

nothing but bubbles of bliss are to be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity,

so that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the

continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man

would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes, and would deliberately

desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into

all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his

vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself (as though

that were so necessary) that men are still men and not the keys of a piano, which the

laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire

nothing but by the calendar. (p. 21)

What Dostoevsky is saying here is that if you try to predict all of man's desires or if you try to

satiate his carnal needs in order to control him, he will purposely choose that which is against his

DEAD MEN AT WAR 5

own interests. He will do this to remind himself that he is a man, and thus he will resist being

played like the keys of a piano. Perhaps what is most unique about man is that during the brevity

of his time on earth, he seeks not only to survive and procreate, but also to introduce into the

world his own “fatal fantastic element”. Perhaps what is most unique about man is that he would

rather give up safety and security in order to maintain his own individual sovereignty. Perhaps

this is the clearest display of the spark of divinity within him.

Dostoevsky was not the only great mind to consider such pressing questions about the

nature of mankind. These questions were also pondered by two of the most influential ideologues

in human history: Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Most people view the battle between Karl Marx

and Adam Smith as an economic one, but this is not truly the case. Marx and Smith were both

moral philosophers at their core, not economists, and thus the battle that they waged was

philosophical in nature, not economic. Indeed communism, the economic system that Karl Marx

advocated, is naturally contrasted by capitalism, the economic system that Adam Smith

advocated, but they are only in opposition to one another because they are the political

manifestations of two divergent philosophical substructures.

Each philosopher developed two signature works that outlined their respective

philosophies; or perhaps a better term would be “ideologies.” Adam Smith penned The Theory

of Moral Sentiments in 1759 and The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Karl Marx fired back with The

Communist Manifesto in 1848 as well as Das Kapital published in three separate volumes from

1867 to 1883. Both men painted a very different picture about how the world is and even how it

ought to be. Despite living decades removed from one another they were able to engage in

fervent intellectual warfare from the grave. Adam Smith spent his entire life during the 18th

century, and Karl Marx spent his during the 19th century. The 20th century, however, would be

DEAD MEN AT WAR 6

the stage upon which these two playwright’s competing scripts would be exhibited, and when the

curtain was pulled back it was soaked with the blood of millions of innocent actors.

Despite the carnage of the 20th century, the world is still a battleground for the

competing ideas of Marx and Smith. When Adam Smith penned The Wealth of Nations, he

would fundamentally restructure how humanity viewed its own labor and the distribution of the

wealth produced from said labor. He outlined the “invisible hand", or the natural, invisible

market force that guides the demand and supply of goods in a free market towards equilibrium.

The beauty of the “invisible hand” is that it creates a self-regulating economy based upon

individuals pursuing their own self interests. Smith believed that the “invisible hand” is what

would ensure that every man received a fair and equitable return in relation to the value of his

labor in the free market.

A few hundred years later, much of the world is living in abundance thanks in large part

to the capitalist ideals of Adam Smith. This has created a false sense of unlimited resources, as

well as the idea that “all we have to do now is worry about dividing up the pie instead of trying

to bake a larger one.”

Millennials in particular have grown up in a bubble of unprecedented opulence and

security, and naturally they have turned towards the ideals of equity and redistribution rather

than relying on Adam Smith's “invisible hand” to disburse the fruits of humanity’s labor. The

question that must be asked is whether they will continue to follow the communal path of

redistribution which inevitably leads to scarcity and suffering, or if they will instead return to the

free market ideals of Smith and leave a prosperous future for their descendants.

The answer to this question centers around the same concept that lies at the core of the

divide between Karl Marx and Adam Smith. It is individual sovereignty. Every policy, idea, and

DEAD MEN AT WAR 7

theory stipulated by Marx and Smith disagrees on this pivotal issue. Their disagreement gives

rise to a dichotomy of ideals, and it lays the foundation for a pantheon of economic and

legislative theories. This dichotomy of ideals also presents some important questions about who

controls society; individuals or the collective. Does the individual have the right to conduct

himself as he sees fit, or is it instead of the responsibility of the State to determine the course of

his actions? Does he have the right to hold and consume the fruits of his own labor, or is instead

the right of the State to distribute such wealth? Are the words that he utters the result of his own

free will and unique thought, or are they simply the meaningless projection of a biochemical

entity?

The Sovereignty of the Individual

The wise military strategist Sun Tzu once posited that every battle is won before it is ever

fought (Tzu, 2006). He believed that in any conflict, physical or intellectual, the victor’s triumph

is the direct result of the quality of his planning. If we are to trust Sun Tzu’s analysis, then the

battle between Marx and Smith relies heavily on the veracity of their opposing literature. In

other words, the morality of the economic systems that they prescribed relies on how closely

their observations align with the truth. Of course, this begs a simple question, the same question

that Pilate laid before Christ, “What is truth?” (John 18:38, KJV). Perhaps an even more

important question might be “What is moral?” In order to answer this, an unlikely diversion into

the record books of the American Kennel Club might be necessary.

The English bulldog has humble origins. The breed was created during the reign of King

John in 13th century England, for the purposes of bullbaiting (The History of the Bulldog, 2020).

“Bullbaiting” was a viscious sport in which a full grown bull was placed into a pit and prodded

with a hot iron. The enraged bull would storm around the bottom of the pit until a lone canine

DEAD MEN AT WAR 8

gladiator was dropped into the mud alongside it. These dogs faced immeasurable odds, and

normally it would not be long before they were sqewered by the thrusting horns of the bull.

Breed after breed of dog was tried in the pit, and each successive attempt was met with the same

bloody conclusion. It had become almost resolved that there could be no contest; the bull would

always vanquish the inferior species. Crowds soon became tired of these events, as they knew

that they were only watching the inevitable defeat of the dog. But one day a new breed entered

the pit, a stout animal with thick jowls and a short snout. Instead of succumbing to the

immeasurable challenge of being faced with a raging bull, this breed of canine refused to turn tail

and run, and stood in stubborn defiance despite its predicament. The bull, inebriated by its

presummation of dominance, would wildly charge the dog hoping to deliver a fateful blow. The

dog would refuse to back down, and as the bull charged it would leap up underneath it and sink

its teeth into the soft underbelly of the bull. This would maim the bull significantly enough that

its ultimate defeat would be easy work for the dog. The crowds loved this new breed, and its

valor garnered cheers of support and adoration. Eventually this dog was named for the sport that

popularized its breeding, and it was given the title “bulldog”. The bulldog’s stubbornness and

determination against whatever challenge was set before it earned its respect among the English

people, so much so that they began to adopt the English bulldog as somewhat of a national

symbol.

Six centuries later, another English bulldog was faced with a much more malignant

danger than an enraged bull. Winston Churchill was given power as Prime Minister of England

during the throes of World War II. His adversary, Adolf Hitler, had invaded Poland, Denmark,

Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France; and he had done so in less than

half a year (Schweikart & Allen, 2014). The only free European power left standing was

DEAD MEN AT WAR 9

Churchill’s England, and its entire army was stranded across the English channel at Dunkirk.

Weak-kneed bureaucrats in parliament had already sought out peace talks with Hitler, hoping to

negotiate a more appealing form of servitude to the “Führer.” Churchill had every reason to

forfeit the cause, as the German Luftwaffe had already begun bombing London, forcing

Londoners to retreat to underground railways. Instead of dishonoring king and country,

Churchill chose to address parliament, and in doing so he consoled a frightened and grieving

nation. His words in this climactic moment were broadcast across the British Isles, but they

would echo for decades to come:

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we

shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall

fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment

believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire

beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle,

until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the

rescue and the liberation of the old. (Churchill, 1940, p. 1)

Churchill’s broadcast would rouse the English people to fight back against the threat of the Nazi

regime, and his words would one day be recognized as the spark that burned down the swastika

banners strewn across Europe.

An inquisitive reader may wonder what Churchill’s story and the story of the English

bulldog have to do with the definition of morality, or the battle between Karl Marx and Adam

Smith. These stories deal with the separation of utility and morality, and the defense of free will.

Ultimately, the bulldog knew that the easier choice might have been to succumb to the gravity of

its predicament. If, like the many breeds that came before it, it chose to cower in defeat, then

DEAD MEN AT WAR 10

perhaps it would have suffered only a quick death. The uniqueness of the animal was its

stubbornness in refusing to allow its dire circumstances to define the course of its actions.

Likewise, the beauty in Churchill’s story resides in his refusal to be “played like the keys of a

piano”, as Dostoyevsky would have put it. Churchill knew that ultimately it was better to die

than to be controlled to such an extent that one simply becomes utilitarian like a piano key.

Churchill seemed to be asking the same question of the British people in 1940 that Patrick Henry

asked of the American colonists in 1775: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at

the price of chains and slavery?” (Henry, 1775, p. 1).

Such a question highlights a deep schism between the philosophies of Marx and Smith.

While Smith sides with the free willed spirit of the bulldog, Marx sides with the bloody utility of

the bull. While Smith’s ideals gave way to the fervent spirit of individualism espoused by

Churchill, Marx’s ideals gave way to the tyrannical force of the collective espoused by Hitler.

The fight between the bulldog and the bull also speaks deeply to what man deems moral,

virtuous, and true. If man found virtue in pure utility, pure strength, then the cheers of the crowd

would be for the bull. But this is not the case. The roar of the crowd was solicited by the little

bulldog instead. It is this display that gives us insight into human nature, and what humanity

sees as a moral good. Perhaps it is not the ability to conquer that is moral, but the ability to

choose to fight in the first place. If morality was determined by utilitarian victory, then in 1940

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party would have had moral superiority over the English army

struggling to end their oppressive rule. Real virtue is found, however, in the grand exhibition of

human will displayed by Winston Churchill, in his ability to face seemingly insurmountable odds

with unwavering determination. As poet Dylan Thomas (1952) would have put it, the common

DEAD MEN AT WAR 11

virtue found in both Churchill and the bulldog is their willingness to “rage against the dying of

the light” (p. 122).

Therefore, one must distinguish between utility and morality, especially when discussing

the battle between Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Many supporters of Adam Smith turn to the

utility of his ideas as the basis for their subscription to them. They argue that capitalism has

afforded greater economic prosperity to more people than any other economic system in the

history of mankind. And of course, they would be correct. Capitalism has sometimes created

more wealth than the benefactors even know what to do with (Burgin, 2016). This occurs

because the incentive of self-interest often leads producers to produce a surplus. Communism,

on the other hand, has always led to scarcity and starvation when implemented (Domenico,

2003). Only a few pages of history must be turned to reveal this bitter truth. One would be

remiss if they failed to mention the destitution of those who lived under the sadistic hammer and

sickle of the Soviet Union, or the brutality of Mao’s regime in China. It would be incorrect,

however, to simply state that the morality of capitalism is found in the bounty resulting from its

implementation. This would simply be relying on utilitarian ethics, which, while effective in a

secular analysis, fail under the scrutiny of a moral analysis. The morality of capitalism rests

upon its protection of the rights of the individual. Capitalism is the most moral economic system

because it ensures that the fruits of one's labor are given to him and him alone, not simply

because of its ability to create the most wealth for the most people. The uniform squawking of

many “Bush-crowd elitists” in the Republican party may protest this, as they would gladly cede

the individual liberties the free market provides if it meant that they might maintain their wealth.

This paper would be an utter failure if its readers were to come away believing that the ideology

of Adam Smith was superior to that of Karl Marx simply because it led to increased production.

DEAD MEN AT WAR 12

If the utilitarian value of increased production is of paramount concern, then the Gestapo run

concentration camps or the Soviet Gulags might be seen as equal to the industrial factories that

arose from Smith’s writings. Hopefully the analysis laid out in the following pages illustrates a

much more important result of the implementation of Smith’s ideas; the preservation of liberty.

A Dichotomy of Ideals

While Smith’s notoriety is largely the result of his work in The Wealth of Nations, his

views regarding moral philosophy are more extensively documented in an earlier work of his,

The Theory of Moral Sentiments. It was first published in 1759, and within its pages Smith lays

the philosophical foundation upon which he will build his economic theories in The Wealth of

Nations in 1776.

Smith begins The Theory of Moral Sentiments with a strong defense of human empathy

and the ability of one man to truly care for the welfare of another. He does this in the very first

paragraph of the very first chapter, a chapter fittingly entitled “Of Sympathy.” Smith (1759)

writes:

However selfish man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature

which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him,

though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. (p. 6)

In this way Smith seperates morality from utility. He highlights the fact that human beings will

often display principles in their nature which move them to act against their own interests in

favor of their fellow man. The utility of such actions is nonexistent; there is often no real

material benefit of rendering someone else’s happiness necessary to one’s own. The only benefit

that may be obtained from such action is that of an abstract, moral nature. Because of this, it is

seemingly a miracle that any man might sacrifice his own welfare for that of another, yet it

DEAD MEN AT WAR 13

happens every day. If this proves anything, it proves that there is something significant dwelling

within man that is neither corporal nor chemical. Such virtuous selflessness flies in the face of

the secular Darwinian dogma that fills academia. If the elongated ascent of mankind was simply

the result of a godless accident, then there would be no pleasure garnered from seeing the

success of others. Such occurrences would neither be socially relevant nor morally significant.

Smith’s appreciation for mankind’s capacity for empathy leads directly into his

observations regarding the necessity of justice. Smith (1759) writes:

If justice is removed, the great, the immense fabric of human society, that fabric which to

raise and support seems in this world, if I may say so, to have been the peculiar and

darling care of Nature, must in a moment crumble into atoms. (p. 60)

Smith contends that society cannot prosper and endure without the establishment of justice.

Without the fair and equitable treatment of all, society would cease to exist. It is here where

Smith highlights the importance of both empathy and self-interest. The enforcement of justice

stems from man’s empathy, as most people can empathise with both sides of a dispute. Such

empathy stems largely from self-interest, as most members of society would like to be treated

“fairly” no matter what side they were on. Therefore in order for a prosperous society to exist,

each member must believe that they would be treated with equal respect and dignity no matter

what position in society they find themselves in. In outlining such concepts, Smith has laid out a

causal chain. Self-interest undergirds human empathy, human empathy undergirds justice, and

justice undergirds society. Therefore in order for society to be run effectively, human beings

must act in their own self-interest.

After laying out his pressupositions regarding empathy and justice, Smith turns to his

most pivotal and prolific argument; the existence of the invisible hand. In the fourth section of

DEAD MEN AT WAR 14

The Theory Of Moral Sentiments, Smith describes how wealth will naturally accumulate in the

hands of those who manage it well. He also describes how this is neither unjust nor inefficient,

because market forces will ultimately determine how wealth is distributed in a free market

system. Smith (1759) writes:

[The rich] are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the

necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal

portions among its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance

the interest of the society, and afford means for the multiplication of the species. (p. 129)

This quotation is preceded by a discussion of how ultimately the rich can only consume a small

fraction of their wealth. With this being the case, it is only natural that the future of their wealth

will ultimately rely on the strength of their investments. If they invest wisely, then their wealth

will grow. If they invest poorly, then their wealth will shrink. Is there a more fair and equitable

system than that which garners such results? Would a fairer system reward those who invest

poorly, and punish those who invest wisely? Of course, the answer is no, there is no system

more equitable and just than the free market. The operative word here is “free.” In such a

system, man is free to do with his wealth what he pleases. He also “lives or dies” by the results

of his actions. Fundamentally, the free-market system allows each individual to act in their own

self-interest, and such a system promotes the just disbursement of wealth and resources because

it gives to each man the fruits of his own labor. Despite the plethora of empathy that mankind

exhibits, Smith recognizes that there is not enough empathy to support a system where one group

is unjustly tasked with providing for the other.

Smith’s defense of the morality of self-interest led him to pen one of the most influential

economic works in human history, The Wealth of Nations. In it, Smith outlines how the

DEAD MEN AT WAR 15

philosophical principles exhibited in The Theory of Moral Sentiments might lead to a just and

successful economy.

The first principle that Smith highlights in The Wealth of Nations is the utility of the

division of labor. Smith argues that the division of labor is the natural result of an economy that

rewards efficiency. For most of human history, man was tasked with learning a multitude of

skills in order to survive. According to Smith, such a learning curve was a waste of valuable

time and energy. This is because it is more efficient for individuals to specialize in the

production of a single product and use the extra “units” to trade for other necessities. The

division of labor would therefore lead to excess not scarcity, and this excess would lead to

greater prosperity for everyone in society. Smith (1776) writes, “It is the great multiplication of

the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which

occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest

ranks of the people” (p. 12). The key phrase here is “universal opulence.” In a system where

labor is divided, each member of society has the opportunity to find something that they are good

at and capitalize on it. Smith notes that this opportunity even extends itself to “the lowest ranks

of people.” If someone has a skill or trade that benefits others in society, they can use it to aquire

wealth no matter where they fall in the social hierarchy. Unlike caste systems or feudal systems,

the free market allows for each individual to reap what they sow, because their income will be

the direct result of the value they add to the market, not their social status.

This division of labor leads Smith once again to the importance of the invisible hand.

More specifically, Smith focuses on the importance of self-interest in any economic exchange.

He writes, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect

our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their

DEAD MEN AT WAR 16

humanity but to their self-love” (Smith, 1776, p. 15). It is here that Smith points out the fairness

of voluntary exchange. The butcher, acting in his own interest, sells his meat for a specified

amount. The buyer, acting in his own interest, is tasked with determining whether or not the

price is a fair one. The dynamics of such an exchange in a free market system are quite simple,

but their implementation leads to a profoundly just economy. This is because in a free market

system the power is given to the consumer, not the state. As it turns out, most consumers know

how to run their lives better than any king, dictator, or government agency.

One may question whether mankind has the innate ability to self-govern and self-

regulate. Allowing each man to live or die by his own volition could prove fatal to society. After

all, such a system affords the government little to no power over the individual, and therefore

some “concerned people in high places” may fret and worry about how they might protect the

“little man” from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, as it were. Once again Adam

Smith seeks to unchain the individual from the shackles of the collective, and he speaks to the

great societal benefit of allowing man to chart his own course without being maligned by the

impediments of the state. Smith (1776) writes:

The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert

itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone, and without

any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but

of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws

too often encumbers its operations; though the effects of these obstructions is always

more or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its security. (p. 581)

Such a quote exhibits the profound trust that Smith has in the resilience and determination of

mankind. Smith highlights how the innate, natural willpower that man possesses is so strong a

DEAD MEN AT WAR 17

force that when allowed to breathe it is able to carry the weight of society. Even when strangled

by the arms of the state, when “the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations,” it is

still often able to overcome such intrusions. The second point that Smith makes is even more

pivotal. Smith concludes that the objective of obstructive laws is almost always to contain the

freedom of the individual or to threaten his security. Such a claim foreshadows any “well

meaning” efforts to impose government control over the market. In this way, Smith is laying

down literary armaments for the future Marxist critique of his ideas. While Smith of course

would never read Marx’s work, he evidently predicted it.

Decades after Adam Smith penned his final sentence, the world would be met with a

philosopher that was altogether antithetical to him. This philosopher would, however, become

equally renowned. Karl Marx, alongside his good and honorable comrade Frederick Engels,

decided that he might challenge the capitalist theories of Adam Smith. Marx presumed that he

was destined to free the working man from the chains that bound him, and thus he sat himself

down in his luxurious London apartment and began to write.

Karl Marx completed his most significant work, The Communist Manifesto in 1848.

Within its pages he laid out a detailed argument about the nature of human society. He also put

forth a bold plan for how to change it. Marx began his analysis of society by making an

anthropological claim. He stated that, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history

of class struggles” (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, p. 34). With one sentence,

Marx lays the foundation for his ideology. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of

history would have to concur with Marx that human history has indeed been a struggle. The vast

majority of history books are not filled with stories of peace and prosperity, but with stories of

conflict and conquest. For most of human history, people labored without the aid of electricity

DEAD MEN AT WAR 18

or any motorized form of transportation (de Vocht, 2019). In addition, lack of sufficient medical

knowledge made the world a dangerous gauntlet of bacteria and diseases (Rosenburg &

Silverman, 2013). The only employment prospects for most people were that of laborer, farmer,

or soldier. The lucky few were able to become a doctor, lawyer, or politician, but the vast

majority had to scratch and claw a living out of self-sufficient farming, risk their neck in battle,

or sell their labor for a meager compensation. So Marx is correct; human history has been a

struggle. He did, however, make a very specific claim regarding this struggle; he stipulated that

it was a “class struggle.”

To highlight such a class struggle, Marx once again turns to a historical analysis. In

depicting the type of class stuggles that have occurred in societies past and present, Marx lays

out several groups that he believes have been historically placed in opposition to one another.

He writes:

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in

a word, oppressor and the oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried

on an uninterrupted , now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a

revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending

classes. (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, p. 35)

The beginning of this quotation is constructed with artful deception. With each preceeding

dichotomy the nature of the relationship is less dire, but Marx presents them together as if they

represent equal levels of oppression. He starts with the dichotomy of the freeman and the slave,

which is of course a totally corrupt and immoral relationship. Marx then mentions the

dichotomy of the patrician and the plebian, as well as that of the lord and the serf. These

relationships are political, so there is a slight element of tyranny built into them as well. The final

DEAD MEN AT WAR 19

dichotomy that Marx mentions is that of the guild-master and the journeyman. To posit that such

a relationship between a tradesman and his worker is on par with that of a master and his slave is

an utterly ridiculous claim. It is, however, the foundation for Marxist thought. In the eyes of

Marx and Engels, the world is only composed of two classes of people, the oppressor and the

oppressed. Marx (1848) explains this when he writes, “Society as a whole is more and more

splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other:

bourgeoisie and proletariat” (p. 35). Bourgeoisie is the term Marx uses to identify the “opressor”

class, the class that he believes uses its power to subjugate and control the “oppressed” class,

which he denotes as the proletariat. In Marx’s other signature work, Das Kapital, he constructs a

caricature of a member of the bourgeoise class. Marx (1867) writes, “work, saving, and avarice

are his three cardinal virtues” (p. 51). This mockery of the “greedy capitalist” is an attempt by

Marx to portray business owners as those who take advantage of others. Instead of being

motivated by the individual spirit of entrepreneurship, Marx stipulates that those who “control

the means of production” have been corrupted by avarice. He and his comrades believe that man

should not bear the fruits of his own labor. Instead, the collective should live or die as a whole.

In order to do this, however, the very concept of private property must be done away with, and

thrown to the side like a dirty rag. Marx (1848) makes this his pivotal claim, writing, “In this

sense, the theory of communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private

property” (The Communist Manifesto, p. 52). Marx does not try to “hide the ball” on this issue

at all. In order for the proletariat to be freed from the tyrrannical grip of the bourgeoisie class,

the freedom to privately hold and maintain anything material must be abolished.

Just as Adam Smith predicted, such infringements are specifically performed as a means

to strip the individual of his freedom and security. Once again, Marx admits this plainly. He

DEAD MEN AT WAR 20

writes, “We communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of

personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labor, which property is alleged to be

the groundwork for all personal freedom, activity, and independence” (Marx & Engels, The

Communist Manifesto, 1848, p. 52). The hypocrisy in this statement is unavoidably evident.

After pages upon pages of discussing how the immorality of private property stems from the

loathsome greed perpetuated by the bourgeoisie class, Marx reverses course completely and

admits that the real reason he wishes to eliminate private ownership of property is to strip the

common man of his personal freedom, activity, and independence.

An excellent example of how Marx subversively attempts to hide his true motives is

found in his discussion of women and labor. Marx stipulates that he believes in the equality of

men and women, and he even goes as far as to claim that women could perhaps be the leaders of

the proletariat revolution. He is unable to hide, however, the real reason that he seeks the

“liberation of women”, when he writes:

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the

more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by

that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity

for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use,

according to their age and sex. (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, p. 44)

What Marx implies in the above paragraph is that as modern machinery alleviates part of the

burden of manual labor, the proletariat might be better served by women who are now able to

handle the less strenuous tasks associated with production. After all, Marx notes sedistically,

“all are instruments of labor” when the workers own the means of production. There could be

perhaps no more destructive notion than to tear a woman away from the home in order to

DEAD MEN AT WAR 21

subjugate her to the inglorious work found in a communist factory. Parallels might be easily

drawn between the Marxist interpretation of the emancipation of women and the current state of

western industry. There is constant posturing by corporate America to become more “inclusive”

to women in the workplace (Holger, 2019). It seems that both the communist dictator and

corporate plutocrat have something in common; an unyielding desire for more “instruments of

labor.”

Marx also does not fail to mention how he hopes to achieve his utopian triumph of the

collective. He writes:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their

ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions. Let the

ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose

but their chains. They have a world to win. (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto,

1848)

Ultimately Marx recognizes that his goals cannot be obtained without a violent redordering or

society. If the proletariat is to rise up, eliminate private property, and seize the means of

production, then the bourgeoisie must be eliminated by force. As Marx’s ardent disciple Joseph

Stalin put it, “You cannnot make an omlette without breaking a few eggs” (Goodman, 1999,

para. 4). While marxists today conceal their true motives behind a veil of platitudes, they still

harbour the same lust for the blood of the bourgeoisie. They claim to be the champions of the

working class, but in reality it is hatred that drives them.

The Motivation of a Marxist

The motivation behind Marxist theory can be illustrated quite effectively by a board

game metaphor. Two brothers are playing a board game. They start off civil and optimistic, but

DEAD MEN AT WAR 22

as one brother starts to win the other brother begins to discount the importance of the game. He

might even claim the game is rigged against him, that it is not his own strategic failures but

instead it is the game that is insufficient. “It's not me,” he says, “the system is corrupt.” Just

before his brother is about to win, he flips the board in the air and the pieces go flying. His logic

is clear. If he is not the winner, then the game must be rigged. But if the game is clearly not

rigged, then he must destroy the game, because it is an evil device that has denigrated him as a

loser while elevating his brother as a winner.

In some ways, the free market is like a chess game. As the game progresses, the disparity

between the number of pieces each player has becomes greater and greater. This disparity is the

direct result of one player’s superior performance, just as a superior income under a free market

system is evident of a superior contribution to the marketplace. In this way, the free market

creates winners and losers just like a chess game creates winners and losers. Perhaps the

writings of Marx should serve as a warning, because the losers in the free market might feel just

hopeless enough to try to topple something a lot more important than a chess board.

Sadly, the motivation behind Marxist theory finds its roots in a common distaste for

competence. People do not tend to hate lottery winners. Why would they? Who could hate

someone who was by pure chance elevated to a position of great wealth, especially considering

the fact that they could easily see themselves in the same position? Those who might align with

Marxist theory, however, do exhibit a certain distaste for competent businessmen. This is

because deep down some people hate to see meritorious success, as it creates an ideal that

becomes a judge of their own inadequacies.

What is wrong with a little distaste for competence? Everyone knows someone who

seems to have everything going for them, someone who knows it and perhaps is even openly

DEAD MEN AT WAR 23

cocky about it. Of course, they are sometimes annoying. Of course, they are sometimes

obnoxiously arrogant. What would be wrong with a little bop on the nose, just to knock them

down a peg and remind them that they are not God’s gift to the world? That is what the Soviet

proletariat thought in 1929. Ukrainian farming oligarchs had been too successful in their grain

production, and in doing so they had become extremely wealthy by supplying the entire northern

Caucus region with grain. The Communist Party in Moscow disapproved of this, labeling them

as greedy members of the bourgeoisie class. In response, Joseph Stalin sent some of his Red

Army up to Ukraine, and they slaughtered thousands of men, women, and children in the

Ukrainian farming elite (Revelations from the Russian Archives, 2016). In order to ensure that

such a capitalist bourgeoisie class would never be able to rise up again, the Soviet Government

took control of grain production. There was, however, just one little problem. They had killed

everyone who had ever had any competence in farming. As a result, millions of Ukrainians

starved to death in one of the largest and devastating famines in human history (Pobjoy, Clark, &

Parry, 1998).

There is perhaps no greater example of the duality of a Marxist’s words and his actions.

The Soviets came to power under the pretense of eliminating starvation and human want through

the distribution of wealth. They demanded of the Russian people the same thing that every

socialist demands of his or her “comrades”. They demanded that the individual “sacrifice for the

community’s needs or for the greater good when individual and collective interests are in

conflict” (Otteson, 2014, p. 4). They demanded that the individual sacrifice his own sovereignty

for the wellbeing of the collective. When the Soviets did indeed seize control, they focused more

on the slaughter and rape of the social elite. Such actions are not representative of an ideology

built upon equality and justice. Instead, they are grounded in hatred and anarchy.

DEAD MEN AT WAR 24

In Defense of Individual Liberty

Suppose a “political revolutionary” issues a decree that limits work for everyone in his

country to eight hours a day. Suppose he issues a decree that guarantees free education for all

people, and state-run healthcare that does not cost the patient a dime. He goes further with his

social reform, arguing strongly for women’s rights and the rights of the poor and the oppressed.

Upon gaining power he federalizes the nation’s banking system, claiming he will soon begin to

redistribute its enormous centralized wealth to the people. He nationalizes agriculture, claiming

that an equal distribution of crops will leave no citizen hungry. He nationalizes control of public

utilities such as railways, roads, sewers and energy. He forms powerful trade unions for textiles,

wood-working, metallurgy, and mining. All of this he does under the banner of national unity

and common values. This may sound like the ideology of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren,

or perhaps some progressive reformer of the future looking to “increase equality and happiness"

for all people. While Senator Sanders and Senator Warren most likely agree with the policies

described, they are not their own. These policies are, or more accurately they were, part of the

agenda of Vladimir Lenin in October of 1917; an agenda that, as previously stated, resulted in

the oppression of millions of people under the cruel fist of the Soviet Union.

The implementation of this ideology is the direct result of Marxist theory. And, as

Marxist theory dictates, the implementation of such policies can only occur when all opposition

to them has been systemically wiped out.

As cliché as it sounds, the only true impediments to Marxist theory are freedom and

democracy. There are a multitude of forces in the past and present that have sought to slow or

perhaps reverse the spread of freedom and democracy, and it is important to evaluate and

understand them. The most prevalent force today is a misinformed public. Many people do not

DEAD MEN AT WAR 25

understand what freedom and democracy truly are. Freedom, by definition, is “the state of not

being imprisoned or enslaved; without bondage” (The Oxford English Dictionary, 1961, p. 111).

Therefore freedom, or being “free,” means to simply be unrestrained by force. Democracy, by

definition, is “a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect

representatives from among themselves to form a governing body” (The Oxford English

Dictionary, 1961, p. 76). Therefore democracy, or a democratic form of government, is a system

of governance under which the people rule, whether directly or indirectly. These words, freedom

and democracy, represent powerful ideas. They are, however, only words, and those with

political power can espouse words indefinitely to create false perceptions. For example, any

rational person could see that the “People’s Republic of North Korea” is neither a republic nor a

government of the people. Freedom and democracy are understood as noble ideals to be

pursued, but they are rarely achieved because those who desire them do not understand that there

is a more foundational ideal that must be achieved before any other. It is the ideal that was

penned boldly by the founders of this nation, it is the ideal that gave birth to the most prosperous

republic in human history, and it is the ideal that inspired the founding of the very institution

enjoining this paper. It is liberty.

Liberty is a word with two definitions, both of which are relevant to the preservation of

freedom and democracy. Liberty in philosophy, “involves free will as contrasted with

determinism” (The Oxford English Dictionary, 1961, p. 204). Thus liberty, defined

philosophically, means that each individual has the ability to act by their own volition. Liberty

in relation to society is “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions

imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views” (The Oxford English

Dictionary, 1961, p. 204 ). Therefore, liberty is also the ability to exercise one’s own will

DEAD MEN AT WAR 26

without government intervention; in essence liberty is the restriction of government. Attempts to

promote freedom and democracy often fail because liberty is not secured first. Politicians

always deify themselves as champions of democracy, but in order to have a democratic

government the people must first be free. And in order to be free, one must have liberty. True

freedom is not freedom from hunger, freedom from pain, or freedom from fear. True freedom is

freedom from government, which is only found in a culture where individual liberty is of

paramount importance.

Liberty throughout history has been taken away through military force and might, in

times when one man or group of men seizes power through the hostile takeover of a region’s

government. This, however, is not the most dangerous method of stripping a people of their

individual freedoms, and it is not the most prevalent danger to liberty today. Liberty is being

threatened today by the same ideology that inspired Karl Marx to formulate his Communist

Manifesto. It is the same ideology that poisoned the mind of Adolf Hitler as his Nazi Socialist

Party burned through Germany, and the same ideology that induced Vladimir Lenin to form the

most oppressive coalition in the human history, the Soviet Union. Such an ideology is simple. It

is the belief in the ultimate sovereignty of the state. It is the belief that every problem in society

has a remedy for it found in increased government control. This is seen today in the agenda of

the political left. It is an agenda that promotes single-payer healthcare systems under the

pretense that no man, woman, or child will be left uninsured. It promotes increased gun control

under the pretense that no one will have to feel threatened by “military-style weapons.” It

promotes the regulation of industry under the pretense of stopping corporate greed. It promotes

the regulation of speech under the pretense that the populace will be protected from unsafe and

hateful rhetoric. These policies may sound appealing to some, but that is all they are meant to

DEAD MEN AT WAR 27

do; sound appealing. Only a fool fishes with a hook alone; if one wants to lure a fish, he must

use bait. It is only after he has swallowed the bait that the fish realizes his jaw has been ensnared

by iron. And it is only after society has submitted to government control that the people realize

they have been stripped of their individual liberty.

Conclusion

What might be done to prevent the rise of a global Marxist regime? Will the continued

preservation of liberty protect mankind from Marx’s dystopian vision for the world? If Karl

Marx was right, then society has already been placed on an inevitable path towards global

communism. If Adam Smith was right, then man’s only hope lies in the sovereignty of the

individual striving to free itself from the tyranny of the collective. There may be a day where

one ideology is indeed victorious, and the spectre of its opposition has been eliminated from the

face of the earth. Perhaps it is more likely, however, that mankind is destined to continue the

battle between Karl Marx and Adam Smith, eternally caught between two dead men at war.

DEAD MEN AT WAR 28

References

Burgin, A. (2016). Larry Neal and Jeffrey G. Williamson, The Cambridge History of Capitalism:

Volume 1, The Rise of Capitalism: From Ancient Origins to 1848; Volume II, The

Spread of Capitalism: From 1848 to the Present. Business History Review, 763-768.

Churchill, W. (1940, June 4). We Shall Fight on the Beaches. Retrieved from International

Churchill Society: https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-

hour/we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches/

de Vocht, F. (2019). The invisible rainbow: A history of electricity and life. Conservation and

Society, 118.

Domenico, L. (2003). History of the Communist Movement: Failure, Betrayal, or Learning

Process? Nature, Society, and Thought, 33.

Dostoyevsky, F. M. (2012). Notes from underground. Mineola: Courier.

Goodman, W. (1999, September 26). Ideas and Trends; Orwell's 2-Legged Message. The New

York Times.

Henry, P. (1775, March 20). Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death. Retrieved from Colonial

Williamsburg: https://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm

Holger, D. (2019, October 26). The business case for more diversity. The Wall Street Journal.

Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Seattle: Pacific Publishing Studio.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. London: Verso.

Otteson, J. R. (2014). What Adam Smith knew. New York: Hackett Publishing Company.

Pobjoy, M., Clark, J., & Parry, D. (1998). Europe: A history. European Review of History, 101-

104.

DEAD MEN AT WAR 29

Revelations from the Russian Archives: The Ukranian Famine. (2016, August 31). Retrieved

from Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html

Rosenburg, C., & Silverman, C. (2013). Disease in history, history in disease: An interview with

Charles Rosenburg. BioSocieties, 360-368.

Schweikart, L., & Allen, M. (2014). A patriot's history of the United States. New York: Sentinel.

Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. New York: Adansonia Press.

Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. New York: The Modern Library.

The History of the Bulldog. (2020, February 3). Retrieved from American Kennel Club:

https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/bulldog/

The Oxford English Dictionary. (1961). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Thomas, D. (1952). The poems of Dylan Thomas. New York: New Directions.

Tzu, S. (2006). The art of war. Minneapolis: Filiquarian Publishing.